Slashdot Mirror

Oh ok, I guess the charges filed by the county prosecutor are based purely on an urban myth.

And Virginia's AG want's to investigate climate scientists. WYFP? Do charges equal guilt on your planet?

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?) and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop talking about?

The only real mystery from the incident is why Tea Party member Gladney, who's seen up-close after the brief encounter walking around and talking to people and who appears to be injury-free, then decided to go to the hospital to treat injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." All that from a two-second fall to the pavement?

Yawn.

Ever heard of Allee Bautsch, the woman savagely beaten for attending a Republican fundraiser?

Frankly, no. There are hundreds of assaults and beatings daily throughout the US and there was no (objective) evidence ever presented that this particular one was politically motivated. The police never found the alleged attackers.

Ever heard of Kenneth Gladney,

Wasn't that the man who got caught on video faking the injuries after a 2 second scuffle? As far as I know the police did not find sufficient evidence for any sort of assault case despite of abundance of witnesses.

Btw, have you heard of an incident at Rand Paul's event where a leftist protester was briefly held down for about one second by a Tea Party member who placed his foot on her shoulder. I'm sure you have, because it was all over headline news, while the other two incidents were never mentioned at all on MSNBC, and barely so on CNN.

That is for the simple reason that there was footage of it like in the case of Kenneth Gladney, of whom I heard (that is the nature of infotainment). Should someone have a film of the other assault, it would have been cheerfully exploited and squeezed for its last advertising dollar by the "media".

Ok, since they are such adaily occurrence, can you provide some example of this "rampage". Or perhaps, the rampage is all in your, easily frightened, brain.

Just of the top of my head.

Frankly, these few examples are a pretty good illustration of the difference in the level and quality of the violence of the two sides. On one hand (if true) you get a broken leg and a skinned knee and on the other there are body parts littering a few city blocks.

Indeed, Beck's tirades about net neutrality rely heavily (and mistakenly) on OMB official Cass Sunstein's 2002 book, which discussed the idea of using government regulation to require websites to link to opposing viewpoints. But Sunstein renounced this proposal years ago, calling it a "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012080028

Here, a nice juicy bone for you instead (it says Glenn Beck is misinformed, so once you've stopped salivating over that, read the rest where it says that Cass Sunstein called for a fairness doctrine in his 2002 book). In fact, the reportage is correct, it simply leaves out Sunstein's renouncement of his own idea. In other words, it's spin, much like MSNBC is spin in a different direction. This doesn't negate the fact that the idea is out there. If you look at what Rush is complaining about (I'm not a Rush listener BTW), he's concerned that someone might want to do what Mr. Sunstein has proposed using the FCC as the tool to get it done.

Not one week ago, /. was nearly apoplectic over the fact that the FCC rule-making didn't provide net neutrality "like we wanted". Now we're gasping about those nutty right wingers who've said that net neutrality is simply a political tool to gain regulatory power and that it might not be what advocates really want. Is it so hard to see that we're not getting what we want from the FCC rulemaking, and that this is one of those things better left alone? At a bare minimum, it should fall on Congress to pass a law to regulate this rather than the FCC just deciding they want to. As almost every article linked in this discussion says, neutrality and fairness are not the same thing. The reason they are not the same is that public airwaves /= internet connectivity, ergo, not the FCC's bailiwick.

with regard to the right wing ('fair and balanced') reporting of the health care debate. Is it really that strange to see another multi-billion dollar industry (substituting telecoms for health insurers/pharma corps) following the same pattern, with the right wing political/media apparatus peppering it's coverage with inaccuracies, slants and whiffs of 'big government' conspiracies?

Much of the language used to shape that debate was actually formed by PR agencies hired by large health insurers as revealed by Wendell Potter (former VP and head of corporate communications for large health insurers CIGNA and Humana) in his book Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans (Nov 2010) . Publicly funded health care was to be branded as "socialism" and a government intrusion. Here is an interview with Mr. Potter.
Republican talking points followed this pattern and then Fox reporters/anchors were ordered to use the same language in their reporting by Fox's managing editor, Bill Sammons.

from Leaked email: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting (Dec 9, 2010):

As far back as March 2009, Fox personalities had sporadically referred to the "government option."

Two months prior to Sammon's 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.

Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

"You know what," Hannity replied, "it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."

Nah Id have to say that killing off the poor and the unprivlidged is among their top priorities. Sure, maybe not directly, but when you use end-of-america rhetoric over insurance covering a yearly talk with a doctor about end of life planning ... *If you want it!* ...Then its hard to trust anything youd say. And when you keep doing this time after time after time, making the most ridiculous arguments imaginable, to the point of contradicting it because the 'other' liked it too, your words become hollow and meaningless. Its like the whole biblical literalism thing. Its not really about literal interpretations, its about finding ways you can ram words together to support your cause. And that is exactly how the right operates in the modern climate: debate and nuance have become roadkill. And now we have to deal with several hours a day of raving lunatics/vicious jerks with persecution and martyr complexes, telling people that things that have been going on since 2004 have actually been started wholly by the left, in the last year, despite the impossibility of these claims. Im sorry, but until the rightwing is willing to stand up for the truth, then they dont deserve to wear...Sorry, channeling Picard again. Yeah, they dont deserve to be trusted on any issue, until they can account for and retract the ones that a quick Google search will show you are complete fabrications, from stem to stern, from alpha to omega, Complete-and-utter Lies. How can we trust ANYONE who is so willing to do such disconnected things? The reason doesnt matter. Whether through bigotry, political favoritism, greed, stupidity or just plain jackassery, the lies are there, and they remain there. They never get retracted. As such, the side who supports these things cannot be trusted either. Remember when Obama gave arizona to mexico? Did I miss the insurrection, or is it just another week-long hissy fit that actually had no meaning in reality? Fortunately, they dont have an answer for that. We should all hide under our blankets as http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012270004 "Obama to Give Manhattan Back to Native Americans." Conservatives, heres your chance, prove me wrong. Denounce this conservative jackassery and start to reclaim your position in our society. We will always welcome you back to the real world, but YOU need to step through the door!

I admit I'm more than a little curious as to what Jamie Hyneman came up with during the Alaskan cabin fever bit.

Also, points for saying batshit crazy lies to the media. (Also, points to media businesses that repeats said lies and for making their own. You know, "government takeover of healthcare", FEMA interment camps, all too common errors in which party denotations are reversed a la whatshisname's page scandal http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010 .)

Sure. Here's Republican Governer Mark Sanford right after being outed as an adulterer, suddenly Democrat:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026

Mark Foley, right after being caught going after pages. And some other cases too:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010?src=other

They also often identify Lieberman as a Democrat, which irritates me no end. He was kicked out of the Democratic party and forced to run as an independent because of his constant selling out of other Democrats. That's still the main role he seems to play as an independent - his recent episode of actually helping with DADT is notable in it's great rarity...

Sure. Here's Republican Governer Mark Sanford right after being outed as an adulterer, suddenly Democrat:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026

Mark Foley, right after being caught going after pages. And some other cases too:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010?src=other

They also often identify Lieberman as a Democrat, which irritates me no end. He was kicked out of the Democratic party and forced to run as an independent because of his constant selling out of other Democrats. That's still the main role he seems to play as an independent - his recent episode of actually helping with DADT is notable in it's great rarity...

My observation is that the economy is getting worse. It doesn't make me "stupid" because I'm going by what I observe.

Fox News coverage of government effectiveness is entirely based on what political party is in power. If the Republicans are in the White House, the economy is fine. If the Democrats are even White House-elect, we are headed for economic collapse.

Oh noes - it took the 10 seconds of a Google search to find documentation. Well, I also had to click the 1st link.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909230024
From: Arguing with Idiots, Chapter 12 "The U.S. Constitution: Lost in translation":

Perhaps no amendment has been twisted and turned as much as this one. The "birthright citizenship clause" was originally meant to ensure that children of freed slaves would be American citizens. Of course, we don't really have that problem anymore, so here's the 21st-century revision:

All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) will be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education,, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any person attempting to thwart this revision of Section I will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people.

Sorry, converting the plain words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." to an anti-immigrant polemic while claiming that the simple and obvious reading of the language is 'Twisting' it - He said it, he wrote it, he profited on it, if you can't handle the fact that the man is a racist that hates the simple language of the 14th amendment, quit reading him.

And no, accusing Media Matters of being liberal media in no way changes the fact that Glenn Beck wrote that. Get over yourself.

Pug

Probably.
The difference is that MSNBC management hasn't, (or at least hasn't been caught) sending orders to staff to:

"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

or to use the phrase "government option" instead of "public option" when reporting about the health care plan, because more people react negatively to the former.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-09/how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/

While quite a few people compare Keith Olbermann to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, I don't think there's any comparison over how much news bias is shown at the two networks overall.

This is the clown you quoted:
(via Media Matters for America )
" * Boortz: "Wanted: A Rand Paul supporter with a bad back to stand on a Media Matters staffer's head for a while"
October 27, 2010 1:52 pm ET filed under Blog
* Boortz calls CAIR's Hooper a "Muslim goon"
October 22, 2010 5:52 am ET filed under Blog
* Media rife with anti-Muslim rhetoric in weeks leading up to 9-11 anniversary
September 09, 2010 9:14 am ET filed under Research
* Boortz: Park51 "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11"
August 31, 2010 7:31 am ET filed under MMtv
* Boortz: Iraq issue a "yawner"; only reason people will watch Obama's speech is to "see how many times Obama says 'I' "
August 31, 2010 7:17 am ET filed under MMtv
* Market bull: Right-wing media dress up political attacks as stock analysis
August 04, 2010 11:04 am ET filed under Research
* Right-wing media hammer teachers, teachers unions
August 03, 2010 3:03 pm ET filed under Research
* Boortz tells Obama to "shut the hell up"
May 13, 2010 5:41 am ET filed under Blog
* Right-wing media target Kagan's physical appearance
May 11, 2010 4:04 pm ET filed under Research
* Conservative media continue tired obsession with Obama's supposed "bowing"
April 13, 2010 10:57 am ET filed under Research
* Boortz: If Obama is hurting your business and you need to lay off a worker, "why not lay off an Obama voter?"
April 09, 2010 1:34 pm ET filed under Blog
* Boortz: Rep. Waters is "arguably the dumbest member of congress"
April 06, 2010 6:08 am ET filed under Blog
* Boortz on Fox's Cops: "Who says that minorities are underrepresented on TV?"
March 28, 2010 10:23 am ET filed under Blog
* Boortz falsely claims "The OBAMA Family" "will NOT be subject to the rules and regs of ObamaCare"
March 25, 2010 12:50 pm ET filed under Blog
* "Burn the Mexican flag!": A look back at the hateful anti-immigration rhetoric from 2006
March 18, 2010 4:17 pm ET filed under Research
* Right-wing media suggest stock market fluctuations are good judge of policy, experts disagree
January 26, 2010 1:07 pm ET filed under Research
* Boortz: "[D]amage Obama and the Dems are doing will surpass" 9-11 terrorist attacks
December 21, 2009 5:49 am ET filed under Blog
* Boortz stays classy: "Never known anyone named 'Blanche' who had any balls at all"
November 23, 2009 5:53 am ET filed under Blog
* Boortz: Rep. Waters is an "idiot" who "should be cleaning restrooms"
November 09, 2009 6:03 am ET filed under Blog
* Following Rep. Foxx's lead, media conservatives compar

Can you provide a time in this video that you perceive a "cheer"? Regardless, this was what the rationale was changed to once it became obvious that Sherrod was telling an uplifting (if meandering) story about her overcoming her prejudice. Is what Andrew Breitbart did to Sherrod more or less egregious than what you perceived from the NAACP (not sure what, exactly, I'll wait for a time in the video I linked to).

Racism is nasty, and we should be able to discuss it without throwing our hands up in the air and labeling it "impossible to discuss" just because conservatives pretend that all liberals think that "all whites are racist, and no person of color can be". I don't think that, and none of my liberal friends think that.

Boehner? Are you kidding me? Boehner distributed campaign distributions from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow congresspeople. On the House floor. Right before a tobacco vote. I mean, there are a lot of people in Congress who are basically corporate shills, but Boehner is easily one of the worst. He's basically a lobbyist in congressional clothing.

Ordinarily I would agree, but FOX News, ever since they decided to funnel money into the GOP and organize protests, is now a propaganda network.
They can't pretend to be "fair and balanced" anymore.

'How much do you think raising taxes on the rich will net you? Have a wild guess. Then take a look at the Laffer curve'

Ah yes, the Laffer curve, favourite graph of right-wing administrations who want to give their backers a tax break since the Reagan years, and Glenn Beck:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002090041

Not everyone is quite as impressed, however. JK Galbraith:

'It is not clear that anyone of sober mentality took Professor Laffer's curve and conclusions seriously. He must have credit, nonetheless, for showing that justifying contrivance, however transparent, could be of high practical service. The tax reduction in the 1980's was, in no slight measure, the product of the Laffer construct. Professor Laffer was not without criticism from professional colleagues, but this in no way detracts from the able service he rendered his constituency.'

But I guess you'd take it as an article of faith that we're on the right side of the curve, and definitely not the left?

'Do you really expect them to continue funding all of the previous government's little fetishes?'

No, of course not - e.g., you could fairly class the ID card scheme (good riddance) as a 'fetish' that deserved to go. But right now we're talking about plans for one of the most savage programmes of cuts in history, which apart from anything else might push us over into a 'double dip' recession. Even the Daily Mail is getting nervous:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318726/Double-dip-warning-growth-slides-Real-risk-economy-weaken-further.html

'Those same markets comprised ~12% of British GDP during the boom, the taxation of which was spent by the Labour government on innumerable little projects that you insist should not be cut today.'

I didn't say that, either. Plenty of 'little projects' are going to have to be cut, some deservedly.

'You're a friend of the financial markets when it suits you, because presumably you approved of this spending.'

I don't approve of the behaviour of the tobacco industry, either, but if it exists it should be taxed.

I like your reasoning.

Yet we have a copyright-abuser local newspaper worried that others might usurp them by having a sued candidate for govenor getting in bed with Fox News http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009220018 instead of them.

Politics makes such odd bedfellows.

This is the same mentality as those who say that opposing the building of the Ground Zero Mosque is "anti-Islamic".

Nope, nothing anti-islamic here!

This is the same mentality as those who say that opposing the building of the Ground Zero Mosque is "anti-Islamic".

Nope, nothing anti-islamic here!

I'm want to believe you, Mr Random Person on the Internet, because what you say strengthens my own position, but in the interest of lording my superiority over those other myth-believing heathens, can you direct me to some documentation that supports this claim?

Ask the myth believing heathens for the documentation that supposedly supports the myth, if they have anything, what it will be is that the number of cases per year overturned out of the Ninth Circuit are greater than any other, which is unsurprising since the Ninth Circuit decides more cases and sees more cases appealed than any other.

See, e.g., here.

What I heard is that some people read that there would be panels set up do determine what health care a patient would need, and that these panels would be able to decide that a person would not receive any health care, based on unspecified criteria, of course. Denying the health care would amount to a death sentence for some. Hence, the propagandist term "death panel". A bit over the top, but a fair reading of what the legislation prescribed.

Um...no. See, there was no such panels in the legislation. Which means it isn't a fair reading of the legislation.

What was in the panel was Medicare covering talking to your doctor about end-of-life care. As in finding out just what exactly the extraordinary measures we have to extend life would actually mean to the quality of life, thus letting the patient figure out what they want their doctor to do.

So no, it's not even close to a fair reading of the legislation.

I don't think anyone claimed that. But, I am open to correction if you have some evidence to the contrary.

Here's the first hit from a Google search. Though This one is a bit more entertaining.

This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average

Keep spreading those lies:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200703010008
From The Tennessean:
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.
That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.
The weblog Think Progress also reported that Gore's office said "Gore's family ... sign[ed] up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch" and "purchas[ed] carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint."

Additionally, a February 27 Associated Press article, questioned TCPR's assertion that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. The AP reported that "according to bills [it] reviewed," "[t]he Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006," while TCPR "said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours." The AP reported that TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

Bolding added.

There's a war in Mexico, and the soldiers routinely cross-over to US territory, kidnap citizens, and drag them back to Mexico. Or just outright kill them. Washington DC used to be the murder capitol of the nation, but now it's been eclipsed by Phoenix Arizona. (Phoenix is also the #1 city for kidnapping.)

It is important to place such claims in context with actual statistics from the Dept of Justice.

1) From 2000 to 2009 the violent crime rate in Phoenix proper is down 30% and property crimes declined 46%. The most recently available statistics - for the 1st quarter of 2010 - indicate violent crime rate in Phoenix has plunged over the last year -- down another 17% homicide specifically is down another 38% and robberies down another 27%.

2) The violent crime rate across the entire state of Arizona is at the lowest its been since 1983. Property crime rates are at similarly low levels too.

3) Essentially all kidnappings in Phoenix are of criminals themselves. The Phoenix Police Department has made an official statement that, "Unless you're involved in the dope trade, there's a very very slim chance [that you'll be kidnapped.]"

4) Violent and property crime rates in other border states have also dropped significantly over the last decade.
(numbers from 1998 to 2008 which is most recently available data)
California: Violent crime down 28%, Property crime down 19%
New Mexico: Violent crime down 32%, Property crime down 32%
Texas: Violent crime down 10%, Property crime down 12%

Except that you've all built up a narrative of what you think mainstream america should be, not what it is.

Wow. A PDF from Media Matters saying that the US is a liberal country and not a conservative one. Well, now I'm convinced.

Except that you've all built up a narrative of what you think mainstream america should be, not what it is.

Your link doesn't work. Goes to Library of Congress and says "Thomas". Nothing else loads. But just looking at what you posted, it is clear in the title of SEC. 401. TAX on individuals... It's a tax, not jail.

In any case, a simple google search of "Obamacare" and "jail" turns up plenty of evidence that it is a myth that you'll go to jail if you don't get insurance. It's clearly documented as a right-wing blog tactic of disinformation.

It seems even Fox News acknowledges that there is no "jail" clause in Obamacare:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160081

Instead, Fox likes to keep posting stories about the bill(s) that WOULD have had a jail clause in them HAD they passed. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/baucus-mandate-penalty-lead-prison-congressional-analysts-say/

And if you follow the deception further, you'll notice stories like this one:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall ...with the same $1,900 penalty introduced in the Baucus bill that was not passed. But that's ok, leave out the fact that this story is about the Baucus bill, add a story about the Baucus bill that says you'll go to jail, then loosely tie it to the ACTUAL bill that does not have a jail clause and you get discussion forums rife with misinformation and rash leaps of logic (like this one)

Media Matters is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds. I'll be nonpartisan and note that Newsbusters does the same thing, just from the other end of America's political spectrum.

Given the possible political angle, it is interesting to see what the different sides are saying about Righthaven.

How long until Washington starts claiming credit for it?

I dunno - probably as long as it took Limbo and friends to imply that it was a White House plot and then start blaming the government for not doing anything about it.

Then there's plenty of other pathetic straw men and canards

FTFY.

Freedom of Speech... unless you disagree with the guy, or it has the possibility of offending someone.

In reference to what? Tipper Gore and CD's? Just one slight problem for you....liberal != Democrat. When Democrats back shit like banning violent video games and passing flag-burning laws, they aren't being liberal, they're being conservative.

Strong government... unless they get involved in your personal life.

Simplistic nonsense, but you knew that already. There is no contradiction in wanting to protect access to abortion, and wanting to keep your local coal mine from dumping toxic waste into the nearby river. Because the woman having an abortion only affects her family, while the coal mine affects everyone downstream.

Higher taxes... but not for ourselves.

Higher taxes on those who can afford it (i.e., the rich). And many liberals are rich, which you have no doubt spent time whining about as a good little wingnut (Hollywood liberals).

Restriction on gun rights... except not for ourselves.

WTF are you talking about. A restriction on xyz guns affects everyone.

Seeing a trend here?

Yup, lots of tired wingnut propaganda that was old 20 years ago. Yawn.

I wasn't aware a 9 month old fetus was a blob of cells with as much brainpower as an average garden worm.

No one has an abortion at 9 months for shits and giggles. No one. If there is an abortion, it's either because the fetus has severe birth defects, or because the mother's life is in danger. Another wingnut straw man bites the dust.

Hell, Obama supported post-birth abortions, i.e., infanticide.

i.e, another baseless wingnut lie. Funny how often that happens.

Calling your opponent a fucktard hardly helps make your case. In fact, reasonable undecided readers will likely write you off for using the word.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/

http://earthfirst.com/desmogblog-debunks-the-global-warming-skeptics-handbook/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200601250007

Hope this helps.

Or Fox News:

Worst Chart I've Seen All Day

I'm proud of myself. I managed to resist calling it Faux News!

Your use of the Bill O'Reilly tactic of taking .000000000001% of all commentors and pretending it's representative of a group just further marks you as being a fucking idiot.

Whereas less than half of Republicans believe that Obama was born in the U.S. Try to find something from the other side of the aisle that's on the same planet, much less the same page, as that bit of lunacy. Oh, and remember how liberal celebrities were mocked for saying they'd move out of the country if Bush was re-elected in 2004? How about Republican Governors talking about seceeding from the frikkin Union after Obama was elected? Feel free to give up your bogus false equivalency at any time.

Good find

Oh, and speaking of good finds, I might as well point out that your smear of Helen Thomas is 100% bogus as well. Watch your own video - she's asked a question on Israel the country and then the "interviewer" interrupts her to change the subject to Jews. Nice try. Well, not really.

Well, while we're talking about Kagan... Myths and falsehoods about Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination.

(from a left-leaning watchdog, but still)

It takes a good while to set in, but like a burn you feel the #@%&er nice and good.

Glenn Beck was right about you! When he has his speech on the anniversary at the same place that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" Speech then you'll see the light!

Paying for articles has a long history [...] and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.

While you're right that checkbook journalism does have a long history, it's none the less considered to be unethical by professional journalists, most of whom would say that paying for the iPhone story was indeed just as wrong as any other part of what Gizmodo did.

The fact that you saw "Obama's Katrina?" on MSNBC seems a little disingenuous, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you just don't watch a lot of TV news. The fact that there's a question mark means it was probably a story about this very topic, with the left-leaning MSNBC trying to discredit such a claim. A little searching finds a clip from The Ed Show on MSNBC doing exactly that.

The fact that you saw "Obama's Katrina?" on MSNBC seems a little disingenuous, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you just don't watch a lot of TV news. The fact that there's a question mark means it was probably a story about this very topic, with the left-leaning MSNBC trying to discredit such a claim. A little searching finds a clip from The Ed Show on MSNBC doing exactly that.

It was because regulation had forced lenders, especially large banks, to take on bad debt in the form of low-income mortgages.

What, Community Reinvestment Act?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810100022

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004200058

Wrong.

Stop blaming poor people for rich people fuckups.

It was because regulation had forced lenders, especially large banks, to take on bad debt in the form of low-income mortgages.

What, Community Reinvestment Act?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810100022

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004200058

Wrong.

Stop blaming poor people for rich people fuckups.

They just declared they have "essentially unlimited" authority to impose "requirements" on Americans to do things and "fines" to punish them for disobedience. (Their words.)

Citation? (A reliable one, please; the "CNS News" that you mention, creation of right-wing loon L. Brent Bozell and perhaps an even worse source of disinformation than even Fox News, has already been brought to task for distortions of health care reform - more than once, in fact.) Thanks.

If they'd been smarter, maybe they would have listened to you and used your argument -- but they didn't.

Well, of course everyone is smarter when they listen to my arguments. :-)

But seriously...it doesn't matter what argument Congresscritters use when they go politicing; they can argue that the ghost of Emperor Norton commanded them to pass the legislation. That might affect how I vote next time around, but has no legal impact on a bill.

What matters is whether they have the Constitutional authority to pass this bill. Substantially, for the reasons I pointed out above, they do. (It certainly may be the case that some small details will be snipped by the courts, I'm not claiming familiarity with every provision; but Congress has Constitutional authority to put just about any tax it likes on us.)

If we let this law stand, then logically we accept that the feds can order us to do pretty much anything, and the 10th Amendment is even deader than it's been since FDR.

The 10th says that the feds don't have powers not mentioned in the Constitution. Taxation and regulation of interstate commerce (which health insurance companies are definitely engaged in) are powers mentioned in the Constitution. Ergo, the 10th is not relevant.

My favorite example is that you'd have to accept a 99% income tax on any American who won't move to a collective turnip farm.

Congress has Constitutional authority to say "We are putting a 99% tax on all incomes; collective turnip farms are exempt." And if the President signs it, it would be the legitimate law of the land.

They would, of course, all be voted out of office at the next opportunity, and replaced with candidates who would repeal that law. That's the Constitution's guard against really stupid laws.

The fact that you don't like a law, or even that a law is really, really stupid, does not mean that it is unconstitutional.

They just declared they have "essentially unlimited" authority to impose "requirements" on Americans to do things and "fines" to punish them for disobedience. (Their words.)

Citation? (A reliable one, please; the "CNS News" that you mention, creation of right-wing loon L. Brent Bozell and perhaps an even worse source of disinformation than even Fox News, has already been brought to task for distortions of health care reform - more than once, in fact.) Thanks.

If they'd been smarter, maybe they would have listened to you and used your argument -- but they didn't.

Well, of course everyone is smarter when they listen to my arguments. :-)

But seriously...it doesn't matter what argument Congresscritters use when they go politicing; they can argue that the ghost of Emperor Norton commanded them to pass the legislation. That might affect how I vote next time around, but has no legal impact on a bill.

What matters is whether they have the Constitutional authority to pass this bill. Substantially, for the reasons I pointed out above, they do. (It certainly may be the case that some small details will be snipped by the courts, I'm not claiming familiarity with every provision; but Congress has Constitutional authority to put just about any tax it likes on us.)

If we let this law stand, then logically we accept that the feds can order us to do pretty much anything, and the 10th Amendment is even deader than it's been since FDR.

The 10th says that the feds don't have powers not mentioned in the Constitution. Taxation and regulation of interstate commerce (which health insurance companies are definitely engaged in) are powers mentioned in the Constitution. Ergo, the 10th is not relevant.

My favorite example is that you'd have to accept a 99% income tax on any American who won't move to a collective turnip farm.

Congress has Constitutional authority to say "We are putting a 99% tax on all incomes; collective turnip farms are exempt." And if the President signs it, it would be the legitimate law of the land.

They would, of course, all be voted out of office at the next opportunity, and replaced with candidates who would repeal that law. That's the Constitution's guard against really stupid laws.

The fact that you don't like a law, or even that a law is really, really stupid, does not mean that it is unconstitutional.

Back when the tea party movement actually was grassroots (for about 2 weeks) before Dick Armey's freedomworks and Fox News co-opted it. This is how the tea party movement got it's start.

Look. There's no excuse for violence at a non-violent protest. In any group some people are asses. I'm not faulting the tea party movement for it's fair share of idiots, I'm faulting it for the racist element it harbors above and beyond its idiot quotient. Aside from the really overt and disguistingstuff, there's only so many times you can say "real americans" need to "take back america" from Obama who isn't eligible to be president because he's a secret Kenyan Muslim Manchurian candidate before it comes across as racially motivated.

When polling finds this:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

When you put it all together, it's impossible to conclude that racism isn't an important motivating factor in the tea party movement.

You cannot incite to violence, panic

Don't tell this guy

I am wondering though, is net neutrality going to end up a victim of partisan politics? The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good" so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama...

Ya think?

Warning: These links contain dangerously high levels of Glenn Beck.

W

"US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig" By Sorcha Faal

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

Someone should get her on Fox News with Michael Brown, Dana Perino, and Rush Limbaugh.

"US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig" By Sorcha Faal

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

Someone should get her on Fox News with Michael Brown, Dana Perino, and Rush Limbaugh.

Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.

Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.

In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.

Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:

1. Obama was born in Kenya, and his mom for some reason isn't a citizen either, and his (s)election was planned 48 years ago. (Sen Inhofe R-OK, Rep Posey R-FL, Rep Bono-Mack R-CA, Rep Campbell R-CA, Rep Blackburn R-TN, Rep Culberson R-TX all sponsored birth certificate legislation)
2. Obama had the oil rigged bombed.

3. (Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Rush Limbaugh (now he said "environmental wackos)

Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?

Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.

Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.

In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.

Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:

1. Obama was born in Kenya, and his mom for some reason isn't a citizen either, and his (s)election was planned 48 years ago. (Sen Inhofe R-OK, Rep Posey R-FL, Rep Bono-Mack R-CA, Rep Campbell R-CA, Rep Blackburn R-TN, Rep Culberson R-TX all sponsored birth certificate legislation)
2. Obama had the oil rigged bombed.

3. (Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Rush Limbaugh (now he said "environmental wackos)

Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?

Sorry, if I don't agree with you, if you're working with a budget it's ok to not keep data that somebody else is responsible for archiving anyway. The data hasn't been destroyed, it's archived and kept by a different organization.
Media Matters seems to have a reasonable explanation of the situation.

I will reiterate, the point here isn't that the data isn't available, it's to attack the credibility of the CRU for trivial reasons. Their results are nearly identical to every other organization that is independently investigating climate change. The data is available and their data construction could be replicated if anyone really wanted to do so.

The reason no one is doing so, is because they already know that there's not enough value in doing so. There are multiple independent organizations who have all reached the same conclusion. Neither the pro-AGW or the anti-AGW people really think there's any value in duplicating the same basic research again. It's just a convenient way to criticize one research group for the sake of criticizing them. It's not about good or bad science, it's about political manipulation.

Not everyone agrees on what Net Neutrality even is, whether or not to support it as envisioned.

Because it's a giant marxist conspiracy to have the government control what is said on the internet??. Either that or Rupert Murdoch must be rubbing his hands in glee as his plot to control the internet comes to fruition as net neutrality suffers a defeat.